Farag M. Mohammed Saltany v. George Bush, President of the United States

D.C. Circuit

Farag M. Mohammed Saltany v. George Bush, President of the United States

960 F.2d 1060, 295 U.S. App. D.C. 133

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 1992

Docket91-5107

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 960 F.2d 1060 (Farag M. Mohammed Saltany v. George Bush, President of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farag M. Mohammed Saltany v. George Bush, President of the United States, 960 F.2d 1060, 295 U.S. App. D.C. 133 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

Judgment for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This cause came to be heard on appeal from a decision by the District Court. The issues have been accorded full consideration by the Court and occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir.R. 14(c).

Counsel challenge the award of Rule 11 and Rule 38 sanctions against them, as directed by a previous panel. The law of the case doctrine bars this challenge. See, e.g., Melong v. Micronesian Claims Comm’n, 643 F.2d 10, 17 (D.C.Cir.1980). We see no clear error combined with manifest injustice, nor does Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990), constitute intervening law on the Rule 11 issue. The prior panel determined that the District Court had found a Rule 11 violation, see Saltany v. Reagan, 886 F.2d 438, 440 (D.C.Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 932, 110 S.Ct. 2172, 109 L.Ed.2d 501 (1990), and there is no basis under Cooter or any other precedent for us to reconsider this determination. Moreover, Cooter makes clear that sanctions must be imposed once a violation is found. See 110 S.Ct. at 2454, 2460.

Counsel also argue for a nonmonetary Rule 11 sanction, but the District Court considered this possibility and reasonably exercised its discretion to impose a fine instead.

Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged that the decision is affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.R. 15.

A separate dissenting statement filed by Circuit Judge WALD is attached.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This cause came to be heard on appeal from a decision by the District Court. The issues have been accorded full consideration by the Court and occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir.R. 14(c).

Counsel challenge the award of Rule 11 and Rule 38 sanctions against them, as directed by a previous panel. The law of the case doctrine bars this challenge. See, e.g., Melong v. Micronesian Claims Comm’n, 643 F.2d 10, 17 (D.C.Cir.1980). We see no clear error combined with manifest injustice, nor does Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990), constitute intervening law on the Rule 11 issue. The prior panel determined that the District Court had found a Rule 11 violation, see Saltany v. Reagan, 886 F.2d 438, 440 (D.C.Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 932, 110 S.Ct. 2172, 109 L.Ed.2d 501 (1990), and there is no basis under Cooter or any other precedent for us to reconsider this determination. Moreover, Cooter makes clear that sanctions must be imposed once a violation is found. See 110 S.Ct. at 2454, 2460.

Counsel also argue for a nonmonetary Rule 11 sanction, but the District Court considered this possibility and reasonably exercised its discretion to impose a fine instead.

Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged that the decision is affirmed.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.R. 15.

A separate dissenting statement filed by Circuit Judge WALD is attached.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

960 F.2d 1060, 295 U.S. App. D.C. 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farag-m-mohammed-saltany-v-george-bush-president-of-the-united-states-cadc-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack